SAM v. DOJ: The D.C. Circuit Case That Could Reverse Federal Cannabis Rescheduling in 2026

The most consequential cannabis rescheduling legal challenge of 2026 is now in the hands of a federal appeals court. Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), joined by anti-drug organizations and two states, is fighting to undo the federal government’s April 2026 decision to move medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The case — formally consolidated under Nos. 26-1106 and 26-1130 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — asks the court to pause, and ultimately reverse, that historic rescheduling order. As of August 8, 2026, briefing has concluded and a ruling could come at any time. For cannabis consumers and businesses across Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, the outcome carries enormous consequences.

What Is the SAM v. DOJ Case?

In April 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed Attorney General Order No. 6754-2026, immediately reclassifying FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. The order was published at 91 Fed. Reg. 22714 on April 28, 2026, and took effect the same day.

Within weeks, a coalition of challengers filed suit in the D.C. Circuit. The lead petitioners are Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), represented in part by Torridon Law PLLC — the firm of former U.S. Attorney General William Barr. The states of Nebraska and Indiana joined as co-petitioners. A related case, No. 26-1136 (New Directions Addiction Recovery Services v. Trump), was consolidated with the SAM and NDASA filings into one unified proceeding.

The respondents are the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole.

The Three Core Legal Arguments

The challengers are not simply arguing that cannabis should remain in Schedule I on policy grounds. Their petition raises three distinct legal theories, each of which, if accepted by the court, would be sufficient on its own to vacate the April order.

Argument One: The APA Notice-and-Comment Violation

The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to publish proposed rules, accept public comment, and issue a reasoned final rule before major regulatory changes take effect. SAM and its co-petitioners argue the DOJ bypassed this entire process by issuing a unilateral "order" under Section 811(d) of the Controlled Substances Act — a treaty-implementation pathway designed for compliance with international drug conventions, not domestic drug policy reform. According to petitioners, this shortcut violated the APA and rendered the order procedurally invalid from day one.

Argument Two: The NORML v. DEA Precedent

Petitioners lean heavily on a 1977 D.C. Circuit decision, NORML v. DEA, which held that the Attorney General cannot use treaty-implementation authority to bypass the scientific and medical evaluation processes the CSA mandates when scheduling a controlled substance. SAM argues the April 2026 order repeats exactly that error — and that the same court that decided NORML should enforce its own precedent and strike the order down.

Argument Three: Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action

Petitioners also argue the order was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, asserting that cannabis still meets the criteria for Schedule I classification — high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in the United States — and that the government’s contrary findings were not adequately supported by the scientific record.

The DOJ’s Defense: Standing and the Merits

The Department of Justice has pushed back on multiple fronts. On threshold grounds, DOJ argues the petitioners lack standing — meaning they have not demonstrated a concrete, cognizable injury directly caused by the rescheduling. The drug-testing industry’s claimed losses, DOJ contends, are speculative, indirect, and outside the "zone of interests" the Controlled Substances Act was designed to protect.

On the merits, DOJ defends the use of Section 811(d) as lawful and argues the rescheduling is fully consistent with both the letter of the CSA and evolving scientific consensus on cannabis’s accepted medical uses. The government has also noted that a stay would disrupt the significant reliance interests that medical cannabis operators have developed since the April order took effect.

The Stay Motion: What It Would Mean

In June 2026, petitioners filed a joint motion asking the D.C. Circuit to stay — temporarily freeze — the rescheduling order while the case is decided on its merits. Briefing concluded July 17, 2026. As of August 8, 2026, the court has not yet ruled.

The stakes of this decision are immediate.

If the Stay Is Granted

The April order is frozen. Medical marijuana immediately reverts to Schedule I status for all federal purposes. The 280E tax relief that medical cannabis businesses have been claiming since late April stops. The expedited DEA registration pathway closes. Businesses that separated their medical and recreational operations to capture Schedule III benefits would face significant disruption — and potential tax liability for the period the order was in effect.

If the Stay Is Denied

Schedule III status holds while the litigation continues on the merits. Medical cannabis operators keep their 280E exemption, continue pursuing DEA registration, and operate under the most favorable federal framework the legal cannabis industry has ever seen in the United States. The case then moves to full merits briefing, a process that will take many months.

The D.C. Circuit could also issue a narrow ruling — granting or denying the stay on standing grounds alone, without touching the merits. That outcome would resolve the immediate question of whether the order stays in effect while leaving the long-term legal picture unsettled.

Why This Case Is Different from the Broader DEA Hearing

SAM v. DOJ is not the same proceeding as the DEA’s administrative hearing on rescheduling recreational marijuana. That separate formal process began June 29, 2026, and concerns whether all marijuana — including adult-use — should be moved to Schedule III through standard regulatory channels. The administrative law judge presiding over those hearings is expected to issue a non-binding recommendation in late 2026.

SAM v. DOJ targets only the April 2026 order — the one that immediately rescheduled medical marijuana using the treaty pathway. Even if the D.C. Circuit sides with SAM and vacates that order, the broader administrative rescheduling process continues on its own track. The two proceedings are legally and procedurally separate. Developments in one do not automatically resolve the other.

What This Means for DMV Cannabis Consumers and Businesses

Washington D.C. operates under a gifting model for recreational cannabis — Initiative 71 permits gifting but not direct retail sales. Maryland fully legalized adult-use cannabis in 2023. Virginia legalized recreational use and continues building out its licensed retail infrastructure. In all three jurisdictions, the recreational market operates under state law, and the products available through compliant local delivery services are not FDA-approved pharmaceutical products.

That means the April 2026 order — which covers FDA-approved products and state-licensed medical marijuana — does not directly change the daily experience of most recreational consumers in the DMV. But indirect effects are real. Schedule III rescheduling has already eased banking conditions for cannabis businesses, reduced the stigma that affects insurance and real estate access, and opened research pathways that may improve product quality over time. If the stay is granted and those gains are reversed, cannabis businesses across the region will feel it in tighter credit, higher operating costs, and a chilling effect on the legitimate industry’s growth.

For medical cannabis patients in Maryland and Virginia, the stakes are more immediate. A granted stay would strip away the federal protections that Schedule III status provides for medical users, potentially affecting employment accommodations under the ADA and prescription access to FDA-approved cannabis-derived medicines.

Regardless of how the federal case resolves, consumers who rely on compliant delivery services can continue to shop and receive cannabis legally under applicable state law. State law governs what’s in your order. Federal rescheduling affects the business conditions behind it.

If you are in the D.C., Maryland, or Virginia area and want to explore current availability, Bud Lords offers cannabis delivery across the region. You can browse products at the Bud Lords shop, check out weed delivery in DC, explore weed delivery in Maryland, or find options for weed delivery in Virginia.

What Comes Next

The D.C. Circuit is not on a fixed deadline to rule on the stay. The court could act within days, weeks, or longer. With briefing concluded July 17, legal observers expect a decision before the end of August 2026 — but no ruling date is guaranteed.

If the court denies the stay, the case moves to full merits briefing, which will take months. If the court grants the stay, the federal cannabis landscape shifts immediately and political pressure on Congress and the executive branch intensifies considerably.

Beyond this courtroom, the DEA’s administrative process continues. Post-hearing briefs in the broader rescheduling hearing were due August 17, 2026. The administrative law judge’s eventual recommendation, and the DEA’s final response to it, will shape whether all marijuana moves to Schedule III through a process that — unlike the April order — followed the standard notice-and-comment path the challengers say is required.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is SAM v. DOJ?

It is the shorthand name for a consolidated legal challenge pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Case Nos. 26-1106 and 26-1130). Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, and the states of Nebraska and Indiana are asking the court to vacate the April 2026 federal order that moved medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

What does the April 2026 rescheduling order actually do?

The order, published at 91 Fed. Reg. 22714, immediately reclassified FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The most immediate effect for businesses is relief from IRS Section 280E, which previously barred cannabis businesses from deducting standard operating expenses. For medical patients, it provides new federal protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Why is SAM challenging the rescheduling?

SAM and its co-petitioners argue the DOJ used an improper procedural shortcut — a treaty-implementation pathway under Section 811(d) of the CSA — to bypass the notice-and-comment rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argue the rescheduling contradicts a 1977 D.C. Circuit precedent (NORML v. DEA) and is unsupported by the scientific record.

What happens if the D.C. Circuit grants the stay?

The April 2026 order would be frozen while the case proceeds. Medical marijuana would revert to Schedule I status for federal purposes, ending the 280E tax exemption for medical cannabis businesses and halting the expedited DEA registration pathway until the court issues a final decision on the merits.

What happens if the stay is denied?

Schedule III status remains in effect while the litigation continues. Medical cannabis operators keep the tax benefits and expanded federal recognition they have had since April 2026. The case then moves to full merits briefing over the following months.

Does this case affect recreational cannabis in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia?

Not directly. The April 2026 order covers medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products, not recreational adult-use products. Recreational cannabis in the DMV remains governed by state law. However, the business conditions behind local cannabis delivery — banking, insurance, operating costs — are affected by federal scheduling status, so indirect effects on consumers and businesses are real.

Is SAM v. DOJ the same as the DEA’s cannabis rescheduling hearing?

No. The DEA held a separate administrative hearing beginning June 29, 2026, on whether to reschedule all marijuana through the standard regulatory process. SAM v. DOJ challenges only the April 2026 executive order that immediately rescheduled medical marijuana using a different legal pathway. The two proceedings are separate and will run on different timelines.

When will the D.C. Circuit rule?

There is no fixed deadline. Briefing on the stay motion concluded July 17, 2026. As of August 8, 2026, no ruling has been issued. Legal observers expect a decision before the end of August, but the court is not bound by that timeline.

Sources

• Marijuana Moment — "Opponents of Marijuana Reform File Lawsuit Challenging Rescheduling" — marijuanamoment.net (accessed August 2026)

• Marijuana Policy Project — "Federal Marijuana Rescheduling: Frequently Asked Questions" — mpp.org (accessed August 2026)

• Ropes & Gray — "The April 2026 Final Order: Challenges in the D.C. Circuit" — ropesgray.com (accessed August 2026)

• Harris Sliwoski LLP — "Marijuana Rescheduling Faces First Major Test" — harris-sliwoski.com (accessed August 2026)

• Federal Register — 91 Fed. Reg. 22714 (April 28, 2026) — federalregister.gov (verified August 2026)

• Learn About SAM — Official Statement on DEA Rescheduling Hearing — learnaboutsam.org (accessed August 2026)

This article was researched and written with AI assistance by the Bud Lords AI Newsroom.